Right Wing Bircher Retreads Run Over by Connecticut Capitol Police



The Connecticut State Capitol Police reverses their previous decision and revokes the Tea Party's flag raising ceremony when they figured out it was nothing more than a political pity party stunt from a bunch of fringe wingnuts:

Tea Party activists won't be permitted to fly the Gadsden Flag over the state Capitol after all.

State Capitol police today reversed an earlier decision to allow the bright yellow "Don't Tread On Me" banner to flutter from the highly visible flagpole after learning that activists had planned a political rally following the flag-raising ceremony.

"It went from being a flag-raising ceremony to a political event,'' Acting Capitol police Chief Walter Lee said. "They are using it as a launching pad for [candidates for] public office."

Tea Party activists view the flag as a historic symbol of American defiance, but critics say the familiar flag with the image of a coiled rattlesnake is now associated with the controversial political movement.

Why they would consider allowing a political stunt from a bunch of far right wing radical retreads of the John Birch Society ilk with no more political weight than socialists in the United States of America have is beyond reason in the first place? /semi-snark

And yes... The thing the far right wingnut Teabaggers mock, that "Evil Socialism!", as being radical and fringe in America is just as popular as they are amongst Americans. Hence the semi-snark.

I'll leave it to you, Dear Reader, to decide whether or not they mock themselves more than anything else. For myself? I'll hold these truths to be self-evident since most socialists I know are not advocating for violence nor are they attacking each other in intra-party brawls like they are at Tea Party events.

A little Humor At Michael Steele's And the RNC's Expense


By now I am pretty sure most of you have read all of the details of the RNC's recruiting night trying to make those Young Republican boys into responsible men in the GOP leadership's mold by taking them all to a Hollywood club specializing in bondage and lesbian sex shows.

So I will skip all of that and get right to the fun stuff:




You can put it all on the GOP donors' tab...

Can we be honest here?


Let's be brutally honest here... The Democratic chances of winning anything in the next elections is "So close yet so far" in the exact same way that the Public Option is.

They deliver a real Public Option like a Medicare Buy-In, they have a chance to win in the next elections. A really good chance to win. They don't, they won't.

And right now the the only way they can deliver a real Public Option is if they do the Medicare Buy-In that they spent an entire campaign implying it would be.

The Democratic party campaigned on a public option with no mandates in the last election cycle and are about to deliver the exact opposite of what appealed to everyone across the political spectrum. Do you really think that "Mandates without a Public Option" is gonna get ya anywhere in the next round? Honestly? Do you really?

There is a reason the public option is still more popular than all of Congress, the White House included. The public option is more popular than any of the pending legislation. And you all know it.

I got nothing beyond that. No links. No facts beyond the political reality. I could give you a 2000 word essay on the subject but if the reality of how this will be perceived by the voter is not enough then there is nothing I can do. The voters in the nation will still only see this:


"A MANDATE WITH NO PUBLIC OPTION."

Good luck running on that in the next elections after running on a public option with no mandates in the last election.

That is the political reality. That is reality. Period.

Democratic party politicians and their til-the-death supporters can deal with it or not. People like myself can only do so much but we cannot help them if they refuse to help themselves.


Politics on a Plane


For ePluribus Media, I had a chance to get to a Blogger's meet up with Rep. Jim Himes in Norwalk, Connecticut, on Tuesday night and we hit on a bunch of topics. We have a couple of videos up where we hit on the topics of Healthcare Reform, What can be Achieved in Reconciliation, Medicare vs For-Profit, etc, over there already and you can peek at these YouTube uploads for more (Six from this event edited so far).

But for those of you that might wonder "if Rep. Anthony Weiner is really pushing as hard as he can for Single Payer?" You might enjoy this short and humorous video from the interview:



There were only two Bloggers there at the beginning of the interview - myself and Saramerica, with Connecticut Bob and Anderson Scooper showing up later - so I managed to get out a lot of questions/advocacy. I tried to edit some of the longer more advocacy type stuff from myself out, if I could, so you wouldn't have to sit through what you already know about my personal positions. :) I am sure some of the other Bloggers attending will have something to say about the event, as well. Also, Jonathan Kantrowitz has a post up over at Connecticut Local Reporter with a video from the event.

Thanks, in advance, for reading and for commentary. :)

Some Basic Info on CBO Scoring of Healthcare Bills


Via ThinkProgress, both the Baucus Bill and the plan put forward by Pelosi will enroll some more people but most will not be in the Public Option and it will not cover everyone:

-----------------------------

CBO: Public Option To Attract Only 6 Million Enrollees & Doesn't Offer Lower Premiums

The public option would attract about 6 million enrollees by 2019 and charge premiums that are "somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges." This is because the public option would "engage in less management of utilization" by its enrollees and "attract a less healthy pool of enrollees," the office concludes. Moreover, since the House bill expands Medicaid up to 150% of the federal poverty line, it's possible that the enrollees that would have enrolled in the public option went into Medicaid instead.

Below is a comparison of the relevant provisions in the House and Senate Finance Committee legislation:

  CBO Score Of House Bill CBO Score Of Baucus Bill
Costs Reduce deficits: $104B/10yrs
Cost: $894B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs
Reduce deficits: $81B/10yrs
Cost: $829B/10yrs
Spends on subsidies: $461B/10yrs
On Medicaid/CHIP: $345B/10yrs
On Small Employer Credit: $23B/10yrs
Insured Uninsured reduced by: 36M
Uninsured in 2019: 18M
In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M
In Medicaid: 15M
Uninsured reduced by: 29M
Uninsured in 2019: 25M
In Exchanges: 23M
In Medicaid: 14M
Revenue Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs
Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs
New taxes: $572B/10yrs
Mandate penalty: $4B/10yrs
Free rider penalty: $23B/10yrs
New taxes: $196B/10yrs
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Total savings: 426B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $170B/10yrs
Total savings: 404B/10yrs
Medicare Advantage: $117B/10yrs


-----------------------------

With a Single Payer solution it would be everybody in and nobody out - AND it would save a heck of a lot more money for everyone.

The difference is not just everyone being covered but HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS saved every year:

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans' health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

There are too many reasons why so many Doctors and Nurses support single payer. Some frequently asked questions concerning Single Payer:


[update] Susie Madrak at C&L suggests you do the math:

The bill provides financial assistance on a sliding scale. Premiums range from 1.5 percent of income to 12% for those at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. The plan provides additional assistance for households up to 400% of the FPL by limiting cost-sharing to 3% of plan costs at the lowest tier, to 30% of plan costs at 350-400% of the FPL.

For instance: If your income is under 133-150% of the poverty level, your premiums will be limited to a range of 1.5 to 3%. That means you'll pay 3% of plan costs, with an annual out-of-pocket cap of $500 for individuals and $1000 for families.

And so on:

150-200% - 3-5.5% - 7% - $1000/$2000
200-250% - 5.5-8% - 15% - $2000/$4000
250-300% - 8-10% - 22% - $4000/$8000
300-350% - 10-11% - 28% - $4500/$9000
350-400% - 11-12% - 30% - $5000/$10,000

The Federal Poverty Level is:

Persons in family
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010

For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So although I've been on unemployment for the past year, I would be expected to pay approximately $4000 a year. Huh? Your individual mileage may vary, but those figures aren't very reassuring to me.

Do the math, and let me know if you think this is affordable.
Go ahead and figure it out for yourselves. Is this making healthcare more affordable for you?

If you are like most Single Payer supporters...


I think you'll find the following links are the bomb!

Weiner Amendment || Kucinich Amendment || Public Option || Healthcare Reform || Republican Healthcare Plan || Democratic Healthcare Plan || Doctors on Healthcare Reform || Nurses on Healthcare Reform

Don't be shy to click on them and feel free to copy and paste them everywhere. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink...

And, ain't it funny what news of the CBO scoring Single Payer can do?

The Buzz on Synergy and the New Media Conglomerates


Over the years we have seen that a massive concentration of corporations and media synergy has been on the rise as a marketing tool:

Synergy in the media

In media economics, synergy is the promotion and sale of a product (and all its versions) throughout the various subsidiaries of a media conglomerate, e.g.: films, soundtracks or video games. Walt Disney pioneered synergistic marketing techniques in the 1930s by granting dozens of firms the right to use his Mickey Mouse character in products and ads, and continued to market Disney media through licensing arrangements. These products can help advertise the film itself and thus help to increase the film's sales. For example, the Spider-Man films had toys of webshooters and figures of the characters made, as well as posters and games.

Even the lefts' more trusted corporate owned news sources are almost always, to a degree, caught up in some conflicts of interests because of Media conglomerates that can be damaging to the public good:

Critics have accused the larger conglomerates of dominating media, especially news, and refusing to publicize or deem "newsworthy" information that would be harmful to their other interests, and of contributing to the merging of entertainment and news (sensationalism) at the expense of tough coverage of serious issues. They are also accused of being a leading force for the standardization of culture (see globalization, Americanization), and they are a frequent target of criticism by partisan political groups which often perceive the news productions biased toward their foes.

In response, the companies and their supporters state that they maintain a strict separation between the business end and the production end of news departments.

Eventually the truth leaks out.

At times we get glimpses of honesty from even the supposed papers of record or television sources we are given by decoding buzz words and/or pulling out facts that, in retrospect on their part and in their own self interests, those news sources would probably like to be able to go back and kill before the more analytical readers out there in the New Media and Blogosphere got their hands on it.

NY Times Admits Shutting Out Single Payer

The media analysis group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an action alert September 22 titled "NYT Slams Single-Payer" that described lopsided reporting in a New York Times article about "Medicare for all," a form of a single-payer health care system. FAIR noted that the article, titled "Medicare for All? 'Crazy,' 'Socialized' and Unlikely", laid out a list of arguments against single-payer while failing to include any balancing responses from the option's supporters. In explaining the slant, article author Katharine Seelye said she was trying to explain why Medicare-for-all was "not going anywhere." "I thought the substance of [single-payer] had been dealt with elsewhere many times," she said. On October 13, Times public editor Clark Hoyt conceded that FAIR "had a point," and agreed that the article excluded the point of view of single-payer health care system supporters. FAIR said it finds Seelye's defense "alarming," and points out that the Times, like the rest of the corporate-owned media, has given the issue of single-payer health care "scant attention."

Not exactly the kind of reaction they would have received in the days before Citizen Journalism and the tools needed to practice it were developed to help create a New Media.

Control of the debate has shifted.

But this has happened ONLY because they no longer control the voice of the debate and especially what is considered acceptable to debate the way they used to in the only outlets that used to be available to contradict their spin, obfuscation and sometimes even lies. In the past, the only outlets we had to react were within the Op Ed. and Letters to the Editor pages some of us were given the limited access they were willing to give to us. Or by taking to the streets, IF they even bothered to cover it, we might get some to notice.

The relatively non-event of teabagrrriism was wall to wall overblown and even lied about in some media and paled in comparison to the well documented over a million peace activists that turned out against illegal invasions and occupations that the traditional media mostly ignored.

It wasn't until places like TPM, C&L, dKos, FDL, BooTrib, MLW and even this place, ePluribus Media, came along to give the varying degrees of the left and moderates a place to raise their voices - and especially in the cases of those that are community Blogs - that we were able to change the entire debate as regular people could connect, comment, factcheck and find what was often the real hidden truths. At times, working together, we - the Blogosphere as whole - have often worked against the grain to drive real news stories from the ground up.

The stories that were burried beneath the deceptive headlines of the infotainment some call news or pushed aside almost completely suddenly were able to be put front center in the peoples debate, shared far and wide and, at times, shame the old traditional media into digging a little further after the truth.

I don't want or mean to put every journalist or editor in the traditional media into the shame category, that would simply be generalising a bit too much. But it has become clear that overall they can no longer be trusted to dig into and factcheck everything and - even more often in these days of media conglomerates downsizing, one of those kinder/nicer buzzwords used in the corporate owned media in place of laying off/firing - many of them may no longer have the resources needed to cover a lot of the more local news anymore.

A unique juncture in media time.

Right here and right now we are edging over into the future of both the traditional media and the new media. Choices we make and things we do can and will either return the control of important political discussions to the kleptocracy that is the controlling interest of the traditonal media or wrestle it from them to allow us the opportunity to have a real, unfiltered and honest voice in the future of this nation.

Some of what may seem like little battles we are going through now will have huge implications on the future of the new media and the people's ability to find it.

What can we do?

I am going to list a few things that, IMHO, we can and need to do to help keep the table tilting towards the truth getting out. I am putting them in an order that I believe does more to keep the hard working views of many of the Bloggers and internet media that has developed from it out there and available to everyone, for consumption and creation of what has been a gamechanger in the politics of this nation.

1. Support Net Neutrality

Everything written and shared, both from the left and right, and all of the truths, information and actions will all be for naught if corporations that own the access points to the internet can shut us down.

Net Neutrality is the foundation that all Citizen Journalism, Blogging and grassroots advocacy is built upon. Freely available information beyond the control of the traditional media and their corpoate owned entities is not the end all, be all but nothing else we do in the New Media will be worthwhile or bear fruit if they can shut the people out from getting to our ideas and actions.

Allowing the corporations control of the internet in the manner they are fighting desperately for would be tantamount to taking away all access to paper and ink from the likes of Thomas Paine in the days leading up to the birth of this nation:

Thomas Paine has a claim to the title The Father of the American Revolution because of Common Sense, the pro-independence monograph pamphlet he anonymously published on January 10, 1776; signed "Written by an Englishman", the pamphlet became an immediate success.  , it quickly spread among the literate, and, in three months, 100,000 copies sold throughout the American British colonies (with only two million free inhabitants), making it a best-selling work in eighteenth-century America.   Paine's original title for the pamphlet was Plain Truth; Paine's friend, pro-independence advocate Benjamin Rush, suggested Common Sense instead.

Paine was not expressing original ideas in Common Sense, but rather employing rhetoric as a means to arouse resentment of the Crown. To achieve these ends, he pioneered a style of political writing suited to the democratic society he envisioned, with Common Sense serving as a primary example. Part of Paine's work was to render complex ideas intelligible to average readers of the day, with clear, concise writing unlike the formal, learned style favored by many of Paine's contemporaries.  

Common Sense was immensely popular, but how many people were converted to the cause of independence by the pamphlet is unknown.   Paine's arguments were rarely cited in public calls for independence, which suggests that Common Sense may have had a more limited impact on the public's thinking about independence than is sometimes believed.   The pamphlet probably had little direct influence on the Continental Congress's decision to issue a Declaration of Independence, since that body was more concerned with how declaring independence would affect the war effort.   Paine's great contribution was in initiating a public debate about independence, which had previously been rather muted.

Loyalists vigorously attacked Common Sense

2. In many ways Bloggers are the modern day Pamphleteers.

Our interests and work is as important to the United States of America remaining a truly free nation today and into the future as theirs and their work was in making the USA that way at the outset. For most Blogs all you need is a free email account any of the many providers and you too can have a voice in the debate. As many individual Blogs grow and become community Blogs or their own traffic becomes too much for the free providers to succesfully accomodate all the time, often there is a need to buy a domain name and web space to park the larger ones.

Unfortunately, the more popular a site becomes the more traffic they receive and the higher their costs to keep the lights on.

Often you will see them put up special donation buttons for various causes, like FDL leading the charge in healthcare reform, that are pretty important to us all or they may offer "premium no add" service options if you become a paying member of their communities, as dKos does. Here at ePM, we are not above hauling out our own version of an ask for various reasons:

Hauling out the Lemonade Stand

Periodically, we are forced to haul out the old Lemonade Stand.

While ePluribus Media strives to be self supporting with ads, we are barely covering the server bill with our ad income. That leaves other expenses out of reach unless we can go to the community for support.

We need to raise some dollars for fees for FOIA requests, reprint permissions, photos and graphics for our Journal stories.  In other words, we need cash to keep the servers humming, the backups running, and the lights on.

So if you can, donate ...

Our operating costs are pretty low and currently every cent of donations goes to server rental, FOIA requests and other fees.  There is not one person involved in ePluribus Media who receives any money for services.

Whatever you do, thanks for all your support!

Usually, those who can help respond in their own interests of keeping the work going at any and all of the sites you may visit. Some of the Bloggers out there may be asking as a combination of keeping their site going and a direct source of income to allow them to continue to have the time to provide the information that they are producing. Whatever their reasons, it is in your best interests to keep as many of these sites up and running and doing what they do.

Even Josh Marshall has, at times, asked this community and the Blogosphere in general to help him in the funding of the expansion of this place which has had an impact on driving hard journalism and news that you would not have found anywhere else in the recent past:

Okay, enough threatening. Like I said, we're expanding our operations at TPM. That will include a redesign of TPM, with expanded coverage of breaking news. But what we really want to do is more reporting, more muckraking. And that's where we want your help. We want to hire at least one reporter-blogger to report directly from Capitol Hill to you every day. And we're asking for your contributions to make that happen.

You've seen the kind of work we do with the US Attorney Purge story, the Abramoff scandal, the Cunningham investigation and other shorter-term stories like the pre-election GOP robocall scam or Foleygate. That's what we do. And now we'd like to do more of it. And that means more reporters.

If you'd like to contribute, you can contribute either electronically with PayPal by clicking the button below or with a check in the mail.



This place might never have had the opportunity to grow into Josh's own vision of the New Media without everyone across the Blogosphere that has allowed him this opportunity.

3. Link Damnit!

These last two parts are things we can and should all work on together more in the future.

We have all known for a longtime that links are capital. The various communities out there have allowed some of the better Bloggers to find new readers and create a loyal readership at their own sites that they otherwise may not have ever had. Many of us have recognized the value of a simple link and in turn have tried to use it is a weapon to our own and everybody else's advantage. Free and easy to use BUT still the most valuable thing we have we all have to give to any other Blogger or POV out there on the net that you want people to see.

A simple link.

The Blog friendships and interlinkage between them all helps to bring in those readers both through exposure provided by direct traffic and by helping increase Google and other search engine rankings. Slowly building this credibility as a force in the Blogosphere has also allowed many, in turn, to have the time and funds to turn out Books and articles to put out in the general marketplace.

But we can do a lot more.

4. New Media Conglomerates and Synergy

We have even more tools available that turn all of our own personal perspectives, insights and political opinions into a real New Media Conglomaorate. Yes, TPM is certainly a New Media Conglomerate now. Another perfect example of putting all of this together is a place like Buzzflash.

buzzflash

They have become the equivalent of a National News organisation with quality, peer reviewed stories from everywhere across the nation and around the world along with their own high quality editorials that provides both a source for Bloggers and a source of traffic for the Bloggers own Blogging material.

But they have added a dimension of New Media Synergy by supporting themselves with a Buzzflash Marketplace made up of products produced by and for the lefts own interests.

The books, many of them written by Bloggers that cut their teeth in the Blog communities, products that are green, earthfriendly and/or fairtrade produced and the bumper stickers and tshirts they sell are an example of turning all of our production into a force of good for a New Media Synergy both from a Bloggers perspective and a human perspective. You buy a book, a bumpersticker or a tshirt and it may support not only the person producing it but the many websites or causes that person may be producing it for.

This is probably one of the most exploitable ways we can help ourselves by helping others and we really need to get the entirety of the left Blogosphere thinking about new and better ways to make it work better for all of us.

Those were just 4 small things...

But I am sure many of you can and will come up other ways and new ideas to keep what is, already today, the foundation of our own evergrowing New Media Conglomerate that, instead of giving in to the evergrowing needs of for-profit corporate interests and their captive control of the media that keeps them profitable enough to be able to drive the old politics that allowed them to keep control of messaging, will keep us all working together in the interests of "We, the grassroots people".

Just my thoughts on the subject and thanks for reading. :)

Consumers Union to launch television policy issue ad for first time in 73-year history


What reasons spurred them on to take this first time action?

The Consumers Union survey of 1,002 adults from Sept. 17 to 20 found that among the ways people have tried to cut back on health care costs:

  • 28 percent put off doctors' visits.
  • 25 percent have been unable to afford medical bills or medication.
  • 22 percent put off medical procedures.
  • 20 percent declined medical tests.
  • 20 percent skipped filling prescriptions.
  • 15 percent took expired medication.
  • 15 percent skipped scheduled dosages of prescriptions.

The problems were more prevalent among households with incomes of less than $50,000 , in which about two-thirds said they'd cut back on health care because of costs. Even where income topped $100,000 , however, about one-third made similar decisions.

Meanwhile, unwittingly making the arguments for the Public Option for us, the anti-consumer union of AHIP defies all logic when it comes to the real goals of reform and the public interest:

On the eve of the Senate Finance Committee vote on the Baucus Debacle, scheduled for tomorrow, AHIP (the helpful folks that represent the private insurers) released a memo and report yesterday to "Member Plan Presidents and CEOs" detailing just how much they're going to have to raise rates if the Baucus bill passes. Because they weren't going to raise rates regardless of reform passing? From the memo:

The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. The report finds that the proposal "will increase premiums above what they would increase under the current system for both individual and family coverage in all four market segments for every year from 2010-2019."

For example, the analysis shows that the cost of the average family policy is approximately $12,300 today and will rise to:

  • $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.

(Just as a point of comparison, insurance rates under the status quo have risen 119 percent in the last decade, and are projected to double again in the next decade, if the status quo remains. Under the status quo, by 2020 the Commonwealth Fund projects an average family policy to increase to $23,842. So when they pretend they're looking out for you, don't buy it.)

The report, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, (as Ezra points out, the same group that the tobacco industry turned to in the 90s to create reports on the economic devastation which would result from taxing tobacco), is long on dire predictions, short on comprehensive analsyis. Ezra highlights a few problems in it: the analysis "assumes no behavioral changes in response to new policies" in response to the increased taxes on high value plans, assuming  or that individuals and employers won't demand cheaper plans that control their costs; they also assume "full cost-shifting of cuts to public programs," as if healthcare spending would remain constant and that "every dollar that a public program cuts from its payments to hospitals is a dollar the private health-care industry has to add to its reimbursements to hospitals," which is insane--this is about cutting costs, not keeping the level of money flowing throughout the system level because we're spending way too much. Jonathon Cohn has another glaring deficiency in the report: it doesn't take into account the subsidies the bill creates to help people purchase insurance.

Yep! They are going to raise rates if that bill passes. We can be certain that they would raise rates no matter which bill is passed unless they are forced to compete with a non-profit plan with teeth. And if nothing passes? Look forward to the costs doubling again in another decade. They almost seem to be making an argument for even bolder reform.

If they are going to raise prices no matter what we may as well turn up the road to single payer.

As Ezra Klein notes, AHIP is turning to the same old tricks and tricksters we have seen in the past. For an in-depth look at parallels between the healthcare battle now and the earlier tobacco wars that defied all logic when it came to protecting consumers health, check the first installment of an ePluribus Media collaboration effort between deltadoc and TheFatLadySings written back in August:

Tobaccoup Road

In 1999, speaking to physicians, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a Reagan appointee, decried the hold of Big Tobacco on health care legislation.

He called tobacco "the sleaziest, slimiest, most devious industry in the world," whose members "also are the smartest and the richest," and then added. "...that's a bad combination."*

Koop remarked:

The biggest scandal in Washington was the Republican Senate selling out to the tobacco industry.

Always prescient, Koop was drawing attention to a coup d'etat: a bloodless takeover of government by big business...one that would drastically effect us for over a decade and is still derailing healthcare reform efforts today.

Koop warned, "We have lost control of medicine to the business world."

[Continue Reading]

Since All of TPM Has Become an Ad for Obama's War...


I logged into my Blog today and was going to post on healthcare but since the entire background of TPM has become one big ass ad for a PBS video on "Obama's War", IOW: The war in Afghanistan...

Senator Chris Dodd on Obama's Afghanistan Strategy


n this video, taken on Saturday, September 26th, '09, Senator Chris Dodd makes sense on the situation in Afghanistan. It starts with Nutmegger John Kantrowitz, from My Left Nutmeg and the Conn-Post Blogs, discussing the shades of Vietnam parallels. But there is an 800 pound guerrilla that too many ignore that I try to point out at the end of the video:

Just so you understand what I am talking about at the end of the video, General Petraeus re-wrote the doctrine for dealing with counterinsurgencies:

The first chapter of Petraeus's manual calls for a "force ratio" of 25 counterinsurgents (here meaning US, allied, and Iraqi soldiers and police) per 1,000 residents. In Baghdad that would require a total force of 120,000. But even with the additional 17,500 US troops President Bush has called for, and a reallocation of Iraqi troops from the North to Baghdad, the total force will be approximately 80,000, a full third less than what the manual prescribes.

I was shooting from the hip and based on my faulty memory, but the numbers I was talking about were sufficiently close to make the point. Thinking in terms of the situation in Afghanistan a quick look at the math tells you what you need to know.

The population of Afghanistan is 28,150,000 according to wikipedia - And the math based on 25 soldiers per thousand residents?

703,750

By Genral Petraeus' own standard that is how many soldiers would be needed to effectively stabelize Afghanistan. Accounting for US, UN and even the Afghanistan soldiers that have been trained up to provide security there are nowhere near enough. And there will never be anywhere near enough without a draft. That is an 800 pound guerilla that nobody will address.

Little wonder why Obama may be suffering from buyer's remorse on campaign statements and early decisions after he was sworn in:

Once in office, Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war. In March, he introduced a "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" in his first significant public statement on the subject, which had expansion written all over it. He also agreed to send in 21,000 more troops (which, by the way, Petraeus reportedly convinced him to do). In August, in another sign of weakness masquerading as strength, before an unenthusiastic audience at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he unnecessarily declared: "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." All of this he will now pay for at the hands of Petraeus, or if not him, then a coterie of military men behind the latest push for a new kind of Afghan War.

As it happens, this was never Obama's "war of necessity." It was always Petraeus's. And the new report from McChrystal and the Surgettes is undoubtedly Petraeus's progeny as well. It seems, in fact, cleverly put together to catch a cautious president, who wasn't cautious enough about his war of choice, in a potentially devastating trap. The military insistence on quick action on a troop decision sets up a devastating choice for the president: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." Go against your chosen general and the failure that follows is yours alone. (Unnamed figures supposedly close to McChrystal are already launching test balloons, passed on by others, suggesting that the general might resign in protest if the president doesn't deliver -- a possibility he has denied even considering.) On the other hand, offer him somewhere between 15,000 and 45,000 more American troops as well as other resources, and the failure that follows will still be yours.

It's a basic lose-lose proposition and, as journalist Eric Schmitt wrote in a New York Times assessment of the situation, "it will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal." No wonder the president and some of his men are dragging their feet and looking elsewhere. As one typically anonymous "defense analyst" quoted in the Los Angeles Times said, the administration is suffering "buyer's remorse for this war... They never really thought about what was required, and now they have sticker shock."

At this moment in time the Generals are asking for more troops and, even by Petraus' own standards, they aren't asking for enough to deal with the issue. And that is assuming the strategy of more boots on the ground is even an effective one. It isn't because the whole strategy is based on loonytunes logic [emph. mine], according to Pen and Sword's Jeff Huber:

Obama said that he would only approve another escalation if he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." McChrystal's report is incoherent on the subject of strategy.

It says, "We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations" and states that success depends not on "seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces" but on "gaining the support of the people." That's laughable in light of the fact that classic clear-hold-build counterinsurgency operations involve seizing terrain and destroying the insurgent forces that occupy it.

The notion that we can separate the Afghan people from the insurgents is as ludicrous as the idea of invading Mexico to separate the Hispanics from the Latinos. Nor can we pretend to be the good guys when the Karzai government we prop up is as bad or worse than the insurgents. McChrystal admits that Afghans have "little reason to support their government."

McChrystal says he sees no sign of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So, his argument goes, in order to disrupt al-Qaeda terror network, we need 45,000 more troops to occupy a country al Qaeda is not in to make sure it doesn't come back. And what exactly is this al-Qaeda juggernaut we've come to quake in fear of? As former CIA officer Philip Giraldi recently noted, "An assessment by France's highly regarded Paris Institute of Political Studies [suggests that] Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda has likely been reduced to a core group of eight to ten terrorists who are on the run more often than not."

If McChrystal and his allies get their way, we'll have deployed over 135,000 troops to Afghanistan--on top of the roughly 130,000 troops still in Iraq--for the purpose of rounding up fewer than a dozen bad guys. Daffy Duck and Wiley Coyote could come up with a better strategy than that. Our military leadership and its supporters are a thundering herd of buffoons whose only real objective is to keep the cash caissons rolling and the gravy ships afloat and the wild blue budget sky high.



Fun with tools...


I did a quick video of this and posted it here on September 21st, but for fun I did a mashup video using a couple of editing tools (Windows Movie Maker twice, and Muvee once) and more footage. Tell me what ya think...




Talking heads and Republicans are tools too!

Senator Dodd on Kucinich Amendment Protecting States Rights for Single Payer


At the end of the blogger outreach on Saturday, September 26th, '09, I talked to Senator Dodd on the Kucinich Amendment Protecting States' Rights to move forward on Single Payer. Essentially, Dodd refers to Senator Bernie Sanders' efforts and Sanders legislation to deal with Erisa laws and allow Single Payer in States that want to start an SP system. Dodd makes no commitment to support it, but he will look at it. Sanders had previously introduced a partial fix to the system and it was rejected in the Senate HELP committee BUT if we can get him to reintroduce it, or even a stronger fix? One possibly more sympathetic and newly minted Chairperson may have the will to twist a few arms:

 

This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.


Senate HELP Committee
July 14, 2009

Sen. Bernie Sanders just offered an amendment to the Senate HELP health care reform bill that would allow a limited number of state experiments with single payer systems. The proposal would have provided waivers from federal regulations such as ERISA, and would have authorized current federal spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to be transferred to the state to be used in the single payer program.

Those voting for the amendment:

Bernie Sanders
Tom Harkin
Sherrod Brown
Jeff Merkley

All Republicans and all other Democrats voted against it.

Notably absent in support of that was former HELP committee Chairperson Senator Dodd.

I have 10 videos in my YouTube archives from this one event alone. More video below the fold.

Read more »

Wheels are coming off the ACORN story:


Seriously? Vera was fired over this, yet there is another hole shot in those GOP juvenile delinquents ACORN stories, as police confirm that Vera had contacted them over their pimp charade.

That makes two videos completely discounted, the Healy embraced murder conspiracy idiocy that had everyone laughing at anyone that tried to push it and this recent Vera story, and their ACORN videos completely discounted and their whole farcical frame up looking like Swiss cheese.

Ya think it is safe to say that all James O'Keefe and his FOX noise accomplices have accomplished is to harass a lot of ACORN employees? Wonder what kind of case these workers will have in court? Vera might have a case against ACORN for wrongful termination and certainly against O'Keefe and FOX noise for defamation of character and, likely, all kinds of other mean and nasty stuff. Never mind the trouble these GOP punks may be in for illegally taping ACORN employees in Maryland.

These two kids are starting to look like very typical poster children for the modern day GOP: Incompetent and criminal in their actions.

Any guesses on when FOX will report on the journalistic fraud their network committed?

Boehner at CPAC calling all of Obama's Policies Socialist


Boehner at CPAC calling all of Obama's Policies Socialist

Flushing out Boehner's lie on Meet the Press and a David Gregory that doesn't follow politics well enough to be able to call him out on the obvious:



Communists... Socialists!

Boehner is no different then any other Bircher whackjob.

Sebelius Teaches Todd The Elmo Sneeze Method


Via ABC's Political Punch:

At a briefing just now, NBC's Chuck Todd just sneezed into his hand, rather than his arm, prompting the joking disapproval of Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Chris Murphy Calls On Congress To Walk The Healthcare Walk


A release from CT-05 Rep. Chris Murphy:

Murphy Calls for All Members of Congress to Purchase Health Insurance in Health Reform Bill's New Exchange

NEW BRITAIN - After hosting public events in Waterbury, Danbury and Washington, Connecticut over the last two days, Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) is announcing today that he is returning to Washington, D.C. next week to call on Members of Congress to purchase their own health insurance on the health insurance exchange. America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the House version of the health care reform bill, will make changes to our current health care system so that more people can afford health insurance and increase choice through a health insurance exchange, which would force private plans to compete with each other and a government sponsored plan.

"For people and businesses that choose to go into the exchange, they will have access to better and cheaper coverage than they have today. There is no reason why Members of Congress shouldn't go into the exchange and choose between the public option and private plans like everyone else," said Murphy.

Murphy wants Members of Congress to be treated like employees of very small businesses are under the House reform bill.

[...snip...]

"We've got to act to bring down the cost of health care for people in Connecticut. If we are going to enact health care reform that the American people believe in, then Members of Congress aren't just going to have to talk the talk, we are going to have to walk the walk. I believe the health insurance exchange will be a good deal for people in Connecticut, and I am willing to place my own health care coverage needs in it to prove my faith in this effort," said Murphy.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com did a great job of breaking down some poll numbers for the Public Option on a district by district level and across the nation. I did a quick cut and paste of the numbers just for Connecticut:

connecticutpublicoptionpolls

The results beg the question of why some more of Connecticut's Congress critters are not leading the charge for the Public Option? They know the people want it and they have to know that it is the right thing to do.

It is an all around political winner and just plain old common sense good public policy.

Some important notes on this from Nate Silver:

We can systematize these results by means of a regression analysis that accounts for the Obama vote share and the poverty level in each district. (Technically, we'll be using a logistic regession, treating each of the voters included in one of these surveys as a separate data point.) This analysis finds that support for the public option nationwide is about 55 percent, against 36 percent opposed, similar results to what I believe to be the most reliable polls on the subject.What's more interesting, though, is where we project the public option in individual districts. We find that:

-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 291 of the 435 Congressional Districts nationwide, or almost exactly two-thirds.

-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 235 of 257 Democratic-held districts.

-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.

Obviously, there is a margin of error inherent to this analysis when applied to any individual district. The polls that inform this analysis themselves have a margin of error, and there is an additional layer of error introduced by the statistical process that we apply to the data.

There is some pretty good reasoning behind this data to tell the few Blue Dogs trying to stand in the way of the Public Option to suck it up and do the right thing, as well. Go and take a look at the data yourself. The information is a real eye opener as to where there is some really strong support for the Public Option even in some supposedly "conservative" districts across the USA.

A little extra previously posted, before Obama's speech last Wednesday, at ePluribus Media, below the fold.


epmvideotinymarker

Real Canadians Talk Real Healthcare

Read more »

Connecticut Man1

user-pic

Following: 26
Followers: 29

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address